Playing Word Games

To continue the previous thoughts concerning conservative evangelical theology:I was saying that conservative theologians want to have their cake and eat it too, by trying to retain both the classic view of Scripture AND the classic view of God. Conservatives should ask themselves whether it is possible to explain the so-called “openess data” in Scripture without violating in practice what they say they believe about inerrancy. For example, the Bible says explicitly in more than one place that “The Lord changed His mind,” or something to that affect, depending on the translation. One wonders how that is to be reconciled with a theology that is strongly committed to the belief that God most certainly does not and could not ever change His mind about anything. You can call it “non-literal interpretation” or appeal to the need to “reconcile contradictory motifs in a way that involves the least distortion”. As James Garner says on “Rockford Files,” “You can call it whatever you like.” The point is that Scripture-which you say is wholly free from error-says that God has changed His mind at times, and you say that He has not. What you say about inerrancy at the ABSTRACT level is belied by how you interpret at the practical level. The only difference between Norman Giesler and Dewey Beegle is that Beegle doesn’t CLAIM to believe in inerrancy. Functionally, the belief is the same.
To drive the point home, consider the various ways that conservative theologians try to explain the “open data” in Scripture:
-We have (seemingly) contradictory passages in the Bible, but there is good reason to allow the “foreknowledge data” to inform the “open data,” rather than vice-versa.
-The number of verses which speak of God knowing the future are much greater than the number of verses which seem to portray God as “open.”
-The passages which are cited by the Open Theists tend to be narrative passages, whereas the foreknowledge proof texts are often found in didactic passages.
-Scriptures which seem to portray God as “open” tend to be found in scriptures from the earlier stages of progressive revelation, whereas the foreknowledge data can be found in the later stages of revelation as well.
Let me summarize:”my verses can beat up on your verses.” As far as I’m concerned, that’s basically what it comes down to. The common thread in all of the above explanations is the acceptance of a seeming contradiction in Scripture, with one reason or another being given for why certain parts of Scripture may be ignored. To approach biblical interpretation that way, while still calling yourself and inerrantist, is just playing word games.
But lets be honest: the Open Theists don’t really believe in inerrancy at the functional level either. They do not want to believe that God made a trip to Sodom to find out how bad things were getting; they do not accept the belief in the corporeality of God which the author(s) of Genesis assumed (with the possible exception of Clark Pinnock); they will not take their own approach to it’s logical conclusion and admit that much of the data in question, if taken literally, removes the OMNISCIENCE of God, and not just a certain view of His relation to the future. Open Theists are not being honest with the Scripture either, nor are they being consistent. If the classic view of God is to be altered according to all the biblical data, Open Theism would only be the beggining of that process.
The point is that conservative evangelical theology-regardless of it’s take on foreknowledge-is not internally consistent. It denies in practice what it maintains in theory. What it normally calls “error” is called metaphor when it is one of those unpalatable items in the inerrant Bible. In the end, conservative evangelical theology can only mask these internal inconsistencies by playing word games.
Or am I missing something?

History of the Divine decrees

In the eternal moment of His timeless existence,God decreed those events which His sovereign power would bring to pass in the unfolding of the universe. He determined all things that now are, all things that have been, and all that will yet be. He decreed the existence of the angels, and their nature, and their number, and their names. He determined what their activities would be, including that of Lucifer:how he would rebel, and be cast out of heaven, and take many spirits with him. He determinded that they would become his sworn enemies, and would ruthlessly oppose the Divine plan and torment God’s people and work to destroy faith.
He decreed that Lucifer would enter the body of the serpent in Eden and tempt the Woman. He planned that she would be deceived and sin, and He sovereignly elected that her husband would follow suit.
He chose for His people, the Jews, a path of rebellion and idolatry, so that He would one day pose the question, “why will ye die, O house of Israel?” though He knew that the answer lay in His immutable decrees. He chose that men should sometimes be ignorant of His foredetermination of all things, and that men would mistakenly interpret without qualification the words of His Apostles that He “wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth,” and that “it is not His will that any should perish.” He determined that the earliest Christians would mistakenly believe that man is free, and that they should be ignorant of the immutable pre-determination of some to glory and some to perdition. He determined that this knowledge would not be discovered until the days of Augustine, whom He chose to advocate the use of torture to bring heretics to the faith. He chose also John Calvin to proclaim the doctrine of the Divine decrees, and determined that he should rule Geneva with an iron hand, and planned that he would have Michael Servetus burned alive for the heresies which God soveriegnly decreed for him to beleive and teach.
He chose that Jacob Arminius would contradict the doctrine of Divine election, and also Wesley, and determined who would beleive them. He chose that a great many would follow this error, and planned that they would beleive in synergism, and brought about through His sovereign rule that they would teach men so.
God chose that a world war would be fought in Europe, and that millions would die, and that millions of His people the Jews would be killed in concentration camps, and sovereignly determined that men would ask, “why?” He chose that men would wrongly seek the reason for their suffering, and that men would be wrongfully discontent with their pre-determined lot in life, and by His Divine influence would cause that many would question His wisdom because of their suffering.
God chose that I would be an Arminian, and come under the infleunce of Gregory Boyd’s warfare worldview, and feel sick on my stomach when I hear Chrisitians telling people to accept the deaths of their family members because “God knows the big picture” and that I would sit here on the fourth of July and listen to Jazz while writing a blog entry intended not to mock someone’s position, but to call meticulous Divine sovereignty into serious question.

Conservative theologians want to have their cake and eat it too

The first entry talks about the dissolusionment many of us feel concerning sectarian propoganda. An even scarier and more disorienting dissolusionment is taking place. I notice that many in my generation are no longer committed to conservative evangelical theology. I am not reffering to those who are becoming liberal, as in, accepting the theory of evolution, the homosexual lifestyle, or desupernaturalizing the bible. It is just that the mental boundary that vaguely demarcates the perimeters of “conservative theology” no longer exists for us. (I keep talking about “us,” but maybe I should just speak for myself. I am certain that many share these same thought trends, but this is largely a report on my own theological journey.) If anything has exposed the weaknesses in conservative evangelical theology, it has been the frightening subject of Open Theism. What makes Open Theism a threat to traditional theology is not just it’s content, but the fact that it builds it’s case by appealing to the innerrancy of scripture. In other words, the content of Open Theism is radically challenging to conservative theology, but the methodology that brings it about is thoroughly conservative. To put it crudely, it makes traditional theism look very bad. Traditional theism basically must demythologize in order to defend the old view of Divine Omniscience in the face of Old Testament texts which speak of God changing his mind, repenting, speaking in “ifs,” and so forth. The fact that conservative theologians are committed to a view of God which cannot be reconciled with all the biblical data exposes it’s deeper weaknesses. We are used to thinking of conservative evangelical theology as the sum total of obviously biblical ideas, with all departures from it being neccessarily departures from scripture, or from a literal reading of scripture. But in this case, all that has been used in conservative theology on the whole-the literal approach, concern for the authors intent, and the rejection of allegorizing and demythologizing-are weapons in the hands of the Open Theists. This puts the traditionalists in a very awkward position. Unless these kinds of issues can be resolved honestly, many in my generation will never feel completely at home with the traditional theolgy.
The bottom line is, I do not see how the classical view of God and the traditional view of scripture can both be true.The God of the Old Testament moves around in space, is sometimes visible, experiences conflicting emotions, changes his mind, learns things as he goes along, can be persuaded to change his plans, and in a great many ways behaves far more like a human being than we are really comfortable with. I for one am sick and tired of being continually embarrassed by the Old Testament. Either we need to be freed from the view that this document is nothing but God’s honest truth, or we need to swallow our theological sensibilities and embrace it’s view of God. One or the other, but not both. The fact that conservative evangelical theology tries to have both-all the while casting suspicion on those who have given up the attempt-is what alienates honest seekers.

Outrageous Paraphrase of Romans Chapter Two

God will render to every man according to his deeds: tribulation and anguish on every soul who does evil, of the Christian first, and also of the non-Christian; but glory, honor and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Christian first, and also to the non-Christian: for there is no partiality with God. For as many as have sinned without the Bible will also perish without the Bible, and as many as have sinned with the Bible will be judged by the Bible.
Indeed, you call yourself a Christian, and rely on the Bible, and believe in Jesus, and know His will, being knowlegeable of scripture. Now, you who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who rail against abortion, do you support military agression? You who decry sexual promiscuity, do you tolerate the “legal adultery” that Jesus forbid? You who bemoan the departure from biblical morality, do you turn the ethic of the New Testament on its head to justify your lifestyle? You who have the most to say about the Bible, do you dishonor the Bible by disregarding what it actually says? For the name of Christ is blasphemed among the unbelievers because of you.
For baptism is profitable if you obey the Bible, but if you disobey the Bible, your baptism has become unbaptism. Therefore, if the ignorant non-Christian keeps the righteous requirements of Jesus, will not his ignorance be counted as faith? And will not the ignorant non-Christian, if he fulfills the spirit of the New Testament, judge you who, even with Christian doctrine and scripture, are a transgressor of scripture? For he is not a Christian who is one outwardly, but he is a Christian who is one inwardly; whose praise is not from men but from God.
Take that with a grain of salt. It is merely intended to use the spirit of the text to make us think and to make modern day pharisees mad.

why sectarianism is losing my generation

It is no secret that the age of denominations is in many respects waning fast. The force of the information explosion, the cumulative weight of 2000 years of church history and just plain common sense are making it increasingly difficult for the apologists of various faith traditions to make their case convincingly. More to the point, many beleivers in my generation have become entirely disinterested in the the whole process of denominational brainwashing. We are coming to hunger for truth: truth period, truth for it’s own sake, truth wherever it may lead. Or, to use courtroom terminology, we want “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” The real point is that more and more of us no longer believe that such an attitude is really compatible with sectarian theology. We are skeptical of belief systems which are propagated by men whose very theology is itself the product of those systems. We find it hard to even listen (though we must) to men who actually have the audacity to proclaim the innate superiority of thier version of Christianity. That what I am writing would be a truism to many is proof of the blessed prevelance of this trend.
Of course, we do not want denominational discussion to come to an end. Sectarian propaganda, for all of its annoying arrogance and borderline triumphalism, still helps the whole Body of Christ to learn more of the fulness of truth. What is needed is for my generation to be “reachable” to the apologists of various Christian “isms.” For that to happen, in my opinion, one key ingredient is needed above everything else: honesty. It is my personal opinion that what turns my generation(“x,” if you haven’t figured it out) off more than anything else is not arrogance or narrowmindedness but dishonesty. By that I mean intellectual dishonesty. Some examples:
-the fundamentalist who for all his talk of a literal approach to scripture cannot subscribe to the belief of various Old Testament writers that “God changed His mind”
-the advocate of high church liturgy who tries to base his view of corporate worship on the scripture but denounces as sensoul the very forms of corporate worship repeatedly mentioned in scripture
-the Conservative Mennonite who makes literal obdience to first Corinthians chapter 11 a test of church membership for women, but not for men(ie, men’s uncovered head)
-the “God and country” prophets who frequently denounce moral decline in America but are strangely silent about structural evils in corporate America and elsewhere
-Evangelical moralists who decry moral relativism in the realm of sex but defend the liquidation of German and Japanese children by the allied Air Forces because it was neccessary to win WWII
-sectarian apologists of nearly all traditions who appeal to the early Church Fathers in support of thier unique beliefs and practices while labelling as heretical beliefs and practices in other traditions which find just as much support in the same writings
-theologians of any persuasion who seem innately incapable of admitting that legitimate and understandable objections can be raised against thier position or that solid arguments can be made in favor of someone else’s point of view.
I hope I have not done an injustice to anyone in the above list, for it is precisely the fear of doing an injustice to another point of view which is at the heart of the concern many of us have for intellectual honesty. It is in that spirit that I hope to write entries for this blog.